[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171019011056.GB17308@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:10:56 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Srividya Desireddy <srividya.dr@...sung.com>,
"sjenning@...hat.com" <sjenning@...hat.com>,
"ddstreet@...e.org" <ddstreet@...e.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"penberg@...nel.org" <penberg@...nel.org>,
Dinakar Reddy Pathireddy <dinakar.p@...sung.com>,
SHARAN ALLUR <sharan.allur@...sung.com>,
RAJIB BASU <rajib.basu@...sung.com>,
JUHUN KIM <juhunkim@...sung.com>,
"srividya.desireddy@...il.com" <srividya.desireddy@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zswap: Same-filled pages handling
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 01:43:10PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > +static int zswap_is_page_same_filled(void *ptr, unsigned long *value)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int pos;
> > + unsigned long *page;
> > +
> > + page = (unsigned long *)ptr;
> > + for (pos = 1; pos < PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(*page); pos++) {
> > + if (page[pos] != page[0])
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> So on 32bit it checks for 32bit repeating values and on 64bit
> for 64bit repeating values. Does that make sense?
Yes. Every 64-bit repeating pattern is also a 32-bit repeating pattern.
Supporting a 64-bit pattern on a 32-bit kernel is painful, but it makes
no sense to *not* support a 64-bit pattern on a 64-bit kernel. This is
the same approach used in zram, fwiw.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists